mspaintadventuresfandomcom-20200224-history
Forum:Apocrypha
I don't think anyone really needs reminding about recent events, but for the record: some backstory was released and some of the content was in poor taste and highly controversial. With that said, from the point of website that documents things: how exactly are we going to handle this? We know from Hussie's apology and from V's commentary about it that the documents are "rough drafts", "a kind of lore road map to inform unrelated future content", and "an incredibly rough outline intended only for internal planning purposes". That being said, it would probably be incorrect to document the information revealed as just fully canon content, but at the same time, a lot of details were revealed and the release of the documents was kind of intended to give us those details. And given the reaction to the stuff, if any of the details are every explored again in an official capacity (and that is an IF) things could change or only minor details may be confirmed. Basically the whole thing currently exists as some sort of semi-canon content where you can basically choose to believe or ignore certain details at your own leisure. I think it goes without saying a large part of the fandom will probably choose to ignore some of the details as canon. But really the wiki isn't responsible of that sort of thing. So, I guess my proposal is, when it comes to the question of documenting it, to basically just split it all off into it's own separate pages, possibly it's own namespace? (I'd need to contact Wikia about setting it up if we did) For example: The Condesce would deal exclusively with her and information about her from Homestuck, Hiveswap, the Friendsims, Hauntswitch, etc. While all the other stuff from the historical documents could be put on a page like: Apocrypha:The Condesce or The Condesce (Apocryphal) or The Condesce/Apocryphal. The second option feels too much like a regular disambiguation which implies two separate characters named the Condesce, and the third option doesn't really work for characters who only appear in the historical documents. So yeah, I'm just going to throw this proposal out there so we know how we intend to handle it before someone decides to create a page for Hitler or something and start a massive wave of vandalism and an edit war. - The Light6 (talk) 17:14, January 3, 2019 (UTC) :My strategy until now was to keep most of the said content on the Skaianet Systems page and acknowledge there that it had questionable canonicity. More broadly, I was thinking perhaps referencing the details briefly on character pages and linking back to the Skaianet page, acknowledging in the process the question of its canonicity. I'm not sure how sustainable that would be, however. Hmm. :Personally, I feel a little uncomfortable at the prospect of devoting a specific portion of the wiki to content that has essentially been denounced by its author, at this point, especially as some of said content has been considered fairly offensive, and we'd be talking about duplicating those inflammatory parts across the wiki. That's more of my personal feeling about it though, and I'm not sure that I can really form an opinion on the best way to organize the wiki on the basis of that. I'm not sure. :For now, I think I'm leaning more towards "keep the information on the Skaianet Systems page, maybe briefly describe it on character pages, and link back to the Skaianet page while mentioning that said information is questionably canonical". How we treat this might change if any more statements come out about how much of what was in the new content should be considered canon post-fallout. Honestly, I'm not sure that we can trust that most/any of it could be considered to still be accurate given how strongly Hussie came out against it and the extent to which he was saying it should have been redrafted. Given that, and given that we don't really have anything definitive to go on on how we should be thinking about some of these specific events, I'm against directly "integrating" much of the content across the rest of the wiki aside from making note of its existence. I'm not sure how worthwhile creating a whole new namespace to document it would be. I'm interested in what other wiki editors might think about all this, though, perhaps we can come to some sort of collective consensus, and deploy a policy that can be used as direction if/when people start adding new wiki content based on the apocrypha. BlackholeWI (talk) 18:03, January 3, 2019 (UTC) ::Maybe a compromise could be to have a few "apocrypha" pages regarding the content, but not go into full detail of say, creating new pages for the characters of Laurel and Hardy. Something more like a page of plot summaries, or a character list, I'm not sure. But then another part of me kinda wants to keep everything quarantined to the Skaianet Systems page, so. *shrug* BlackholeWI (talk) 18:06, January 3, 2019 (UTC) :I suggest they keep treated as canon until (and if) they get deconfirmed/rewritten. Characters like Chaplin that should never be mentioned again don't need their own page though. Mamaopapaya (talk) 18:09, January 3, 2019 (UTC)